I'm an artist / dev, not sure what to make of NFT's but after reading through a lot of this thread (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29159693) I feel like they're problematic at best / yet another boring pyramid scheme at worst.<p>In any case I'm just wondering if someone (hypothetically) hated NFT's but wanted to make some art, what type of art would represent the polar opposite of an NFT?<p>Dumb question maybe but just a thought experiment.
Andrew Plotkin just posted about selling fake NFTs. They're not that much different for the uninformed end-user than a normal NFT, and much better for the environment. <a href="https://twitter.com/zarfeblong/status/1458140086030061576" rel="nofollow">https://twitter.com/zarfeblong/status/1458140086030061576</a><p>Oh and there was some art that did something pretty similar to NFTs, but using a normal contract instead of a "smart" contract. <a href="https://dangiordan.wordpress.com/2010/02/05/a-tool-to-deceive-and-slaughter%E2%80%A6an-introduction-to-abstract-transactionism/" rel="nofollow">https://dangiordan.wordpress.com/2010/02/05/a-tool-to-deceiv...</a>
I don't really hate NFTs but I'm very critical to (a) the way models of digital scarcity is introduced to digital artist by the blockchain (maximalist) tribes effectively making the whole thing very similar to pyramid schemes as you suggested, (b) carbon emission footprint of Proof of Work.<p>But to your question, I suppose any work in digital media which is fungible could be reluctantly considered as "polar opposite of an NFT". One could even do better than that and release the artworks under an open license like CC.
An ugly embarrassing asset that you don't want to have. When you own it, you agree to a smart contract that drains away some of your currency every day. If someone gives you one, the only way to rid yourself of it is to give two copies to two other people, resulting in it become more and more common and hated. Kinda like Gremlins, Velvet Elvis, and a chain letter rolled into one.
A fungible token!<p>Contrary to what many would believe, something like Bitcoin is not fungible. Instead a coin without history can be regarded as fungible. For example Monero is a strong privacy coin with good fungibility.
My beginner understanding of NFTs leads me to think the polar opposite would achieve the goals of:<p>1. No ownership / everyone owns it<p>2. No limits to copying/editing/republishing<p>3. No royalties or payment of any kind<p>So maybe just posting your digital art online with an open-source license of some kind (usually that is for code) that indicates anyone can use it, copy it, do whatever they want with it and pay you no money/royalties.<p>People have pointed out that the actual art isn't in the NFT. This means anyone that knows how to capture a screenshot can duplicate anything they see online. This makes me think of stock photography sites. How do they enforce people aren't just copying/pasting the photos? Is this even enforceable/preventable? How would NFT's solve enforcement/prevention?<p>Since this is partly a thought experiment... one way for enforcement/prevention is for the digital artwork to be only used in closed source systems where validation with an NFT marketplace could be used. Websites are open source, maybe not legally but in essence you can copy anything that shows up on your screen, download images, etc. Closed source systems where people are paying to enter, like old school installable Enterprise software, could prevent or at least make copying extremely difficult and easier to trace. Another closed source system is video games - heavy on the artwork and lots of (much hated) micro-transactions to purchase cosmetic items.
The opposite of a non fungible token is a fungible one, a normal token / coin.<p>You're emphasizing too much on the art aspect. It's simply a mechanism to tie ownership to a digital asset.
nfts are about proving ownership and binding a protocol to the transfer of the ability to prove that ownership in an attempt to secure it, so i would call the opposite a public declaration that a piece of art or property belongs to everyone and is in the public domain.
“Buildings made with fungi could live, grow — and then biodegrade”<p><a href="https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/what-on-earth-mycelium-fungi-building-1.5963938" rel="nofollow">https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/what-on-earth-mycelium-fungi...</a>
My 1901 United States Liberty Dollar, minted in New Orleans would be a good example of the opposite of an NFT. It's fungible, a token, and hardly unique. It also makes a nice "twing" when you flip it with your thumb.